i want to clarify a comment i made about charging the protesters with terrorism. because the issue is to do with rail service, specifically, this is actually true, at least in ontario. it stems from a law written during the bill davis years (it is pre-charter) that has never been enforced and would probably be struck down if they tried, but it's there nonetheless.

i cannot find this law right now, and i'm on the chromebook so i'm stuck without my filters (google wants to send me to "know my rights" sites, which are completely useless), but i've had this argument quite a few times. people seem to think that being on public property gives them more rights, when the exact opposite is true.

so, for example, police can legally search you without a warrant if you are on any kind of municipally or provincially owned property. again - that hasn't been tested in court. but, there is a law that explicitly gives police the right to search you at city hall. 

in this same law, rail service is categorized as a specific type of infrastructure, and disrupting it is actually considered to legally be terrorism under the law, here. it would also be considered terrorism to disrupt the electrical grid.

i'm not suggesting they should be charged with terrorism. but, mr. blair was legally incorrect in his response, as he often is.